ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 6 No 4
July 2015
The Reflections of New Public Management on Local Government Laws in Turkey
Assistant Professor Dr. Zuhal Önez Çetin
Uúak University, Public Administration Department, Head of the Local Government Studies
zuhal.cetin@usak.edu.tr, zuhalonez@gmail.com
Doi:10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4p36
Abstract
By the 1980s onwards, the management of public sector has witnessed a significant transformation and a new paradigm came
out with the name of the New Public Management (NPM), as a challenge to the classical public administration. At that
framework, Turkey has also felt the impact of that new paradigm at the administrative system. The first objective of the article is
examining the emergence of NPM at the global planet. In that context, the key themes, initiatives, and principles of NPM have
been put forth in detail. The second objective of the article is searching the emergence of the new paradigm of NPM in Turkey.
The third objective is examining the general justifications of four Local Government Laws such as Special Provincial
Administration Law No. 5302, Municipality Law No. 5393, Metropolitan Municipality Law No. 5216 and lastly, Law No. 6360 on
‘The Establishment of Fourteen Metropolitan Municipalities and Twenty-seven Districts and Amendments at Certain Law and
Decree Laws’. The general justifications of those Laws are analysed with the method of content analysis for the evaluation of
NPM approach’s key themes, principles, and components at the reference Laws. Lastly, it is seen that most of the principles of
NPM are expressed at the general justifications of that related Laws such as decentralization, performance management,
flexibility, effectiveness, efficiency, subsidiarity, participation, service quality, competitive and enterprising government,
accountability, and transparency.
Keywords: New Public Management, Local Government Laws, General Justifications
1. Introduction
By the 1980s onwards, the management of public sector has witnessed a significant transformation in many developed
countries at the global planet (Özer, 2012: 202). This case cannot be viewed as a simple change, but it has been
evaluated as a paradigm shift in the classical public administration. Therefore, NPA, as a new paradigm came out as a
challenge to the classical public administration and its limited nature, culture, and principles (Ömürgönülúen, 1997: 517).
Likewise, Sarker and Pathak (2000: 57) expressed that NPM is different from the traditional public administration and put
forward the view that traditional public administration at the global planet failed to reach the perception of the
environmental forces that the governments encountered in the last twenty years that NPM came out as a response to
those related forces. At the other side, Promberger and Rauskala (2003: 1) clarified that by the 1980s onwards, the study
of public sector faced with a paradigm shift from the principles of public administration (Weberian model of public
administration) to those of public management. By that paradigm shift, the public sector started to have more common
peculiarities with the private sector. At that point, Dunleavy and Hood (1994: 9) put forth that paradigm shift with those
clarifications;
• Budgets being transparent in accounting terms, with costs attributed to outputs not inputs, and outputs being
measured by performance indicators.
• Viewing organisations as a chain of low-trust principal/agent relationships and a network of contracts linking
incentives to performance (rather than long term relational commitments or trustee-beneficiary ones).
• Disaggregating separable functions into quasi-contractual or quasi-market forms, particularly by introducing
purchaser/provider distinctions.
• Opening up provider roles to competition between agencies or between public agencies, firms and not-forprofit bodies.
• Deconcentrating provider roles to the minimum-feasible sized agency, allowing users more scope for ‘exit’
from one provider to another, rather than relying on ‘voice’ options to influence how public service provision
affects them.
In this regard, the new values of the public sector can be listed as follows; giving priority to the market rather than
hierarchical bureaucracy, focusing on responsibility towards customers, concentrating on the results rather than the
36
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 6 No 4
July 2015
processes, overemphasizing on business management rather than public administration, concentrating on economy,
efficiency, and effectiveness (Ömürgönülúen, 1997: 531). As it was seen from the above-listed features, NPM approach
take its source from the fundamental values of market mechanisms such as customer orientation, competitiveness,
flexibility, pluralism, performance, and result-orientation (Eikenberry &Pautz, 2008: 201; Zeren, 2011: 25).
In that scope, the emergence of the NPM is worth to mention, that process can be identified around economic,
social, and political factors (Kurt &U÷urlu, 2007: 83). Within the context of the economic factors, the adoption of the
welfare state approach changes the functions of the state, widens the formation of the organization, and leads to the
increase at public spending. The economic recession came up in the 1970s and various structural amendments
implemented to get rid of from the economic crisis at that related period; and significant steps were taken to reduce the
role of the state in the economy (Özer, 2005: 21). The governments launched to implement administrative reforms in
order to solve the economic, political, and social problems. As a result of those facts, efficiency and effectiveness
concepts came to the front side; the transition of business management techniques and applications to the public
administration system had been demanded by the governments (Parlak &SobacÕ, 2005: 203; Sezen, 2006: 42).
Moreover, at the evaluation of the social factors, it is seen that the citizens are now more educated, looking for their
rights, and they are less obedient to the political authority. Today, people do not only demand more services but also for
more qualified service (better quality of service). Lastly, when considering the political factors, it is undeniable that new
right ideology affects NPM and creates an ideological basis for it (Bilgiç, 2003: 30-31). According to the new-right
thinkers, state’s role and intervention should be minimized at the provision of the public services in an effective manner.
At that point, new-right thinkers assert that the economic development can be achieved better with this way because the
scarce resources used at the most efficient areas in the free-market. Those listed themes came to the front side at the
administration system by the effect of all these factors and with the change in the public administration approach, such
as;
(1) Public activity fields of state and public employment should be reduced,
(2) Public service delivery should leave to the private sector,
(3) Competitive factors should keep in the forefront at the provision of services,
(4) Limiting the state’s legal regulation, restricting and control authority on sectors by deregulation and
liberalization (Arap &YÕlmaz, 2006: 54).
By the 1980 onwards, ‘first generation of structural reforms’ or ‘economic-financial liberation’ wave emerged, with
the target of the reduction of the responsibility and functioning area of the state. Economic and political tools of reform are
deregulation and privatization (Çetin, 2012: 60). At the neo-liberal political economy, the notion was based on ‘minimal
state’ confined to securing law and order, macro-economic stability, and the provision of physical infrastructure (Öniú
&ùenses, 2003: 1-2). At that context, Turkey has also affected by the neo-liberal policies and significant steps started to
be taken at privatization after 1980s. State monopolies in various fields were removed, and the emphasis was given to
the deregulation policies (EryÕlmaz, 2002: 153). By the 2000s onwards, one of the most serious attempts at public
administration launched with the Law No. 5227 on ‘Basic Principles and Restructuring of Public Administration’ that was
prepared with taking into account the themes and principles of NPM. While that Law found no chance for application, the
local government laws that put into force one by one complement the local government reform process in accordance
with the themes and principles of NPM. In that context, local government laws are significant in indicating the NPM impact
at the local administrative system in Turkey. The main objective of that study is the analysis of the basic components of
the NPM at the general justifications of the local government laws in Turkey. In that framework, the basic components of
the NPM have been searched by the content analysis method at the general justification of the local government Laws
No. 5393 on Municipality, Law No. 5216 on Metropolitan Municipality, Law No. 5302 on Special Provincial Administration,
Law No. 6360 on The Establishment of Fourteen Metropolitan Municipalities and Twenty-seven Districts and
Amendments at Certain Law and Decree Laws. In that framework, before passing to the examination of the justifications
of the local laws; the other objectives of the study are the searching of the emergence of NPM at the global planet and in
Turkey, and putting forth the key themes, initiatives, and principles of NPM in detail. At that framework, the content
analysis method is used in the evaluation of the NPM themes and principles at the general justification of the local
government laws. In this regard, content analysis is referred as a flexible method at the analysis of the text data
(Cavanagh, 1997). It is an appropriate method for that study because it corresponds with the three fundamental
principles of scientific method such as objectivity, systematic, and generalizability. By the objectivity principle the analysis
can be carried out on the grounds of explicit rules that allow different researchers to achieve the same results from the
same documents; it gives the possibility of making the inclusion of exclusion of the content as to some consistently
applied rules; and lastly, the outcomes of the research can be adapted to the other similar studies on that field of study
(Prasad, 2008: 3).
37
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 6 No 4
July 2015
2. The New Public Management Approach
A new dimension articulated in the discussions of the public administration and management by the emergence of ‘public
management approach’. The emergence of that approach within the public administration theory went back to the end of
the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s. In that regard, James Perry and Kenneth Kraemer from the California
University in U.S. proclaimed the birth of a new public management science in their published book titled ‘Public
Management: Public and Private Perspectives’ in 1983. Those scholars determined the purpose and characteristics of
this new science as follows: 1) To understand and develop the ways, and the methods of the public organizations at their
fulfillment of their assigned duties, 2) In doing so, taking the executive power, and its components as the basic unit of
analysis, 3) To develop effective tools, and techniques to make the public managers more competent, 4) To focus on
comparative techniques between inter-organizations and sections (Üstüner, 2012: 388; Perry &Kraemer, 1983). The
problems that emerged at the legitimization efforts at the theoretical level of public management led to the entrance of
that approach to an intellectual crisis in the late 1980s. At that point, Üstüner (2012: 392) clarified that the most significant
reason of this crisis stemmed from its limited and reductionist methodology and it made the new expansions necessary.
The scholar also put forth that the redefinition of the public management process has been realized with the birth of the
new public management.
In the light of those clarifications, NPM launched to be used firstly at the OECD Reports. In that framework, one of
the most prominent scholars that used that term is Christopher Hood from London University. Hood’s article of ‘A Public
Management for All Seasons’ has a crucial role in the determination of the key aspects of NPM. As to the scholar, “NPM
offers an all-purpose key to better provision of public services” linking with ‘mega-trends’ of administration namely;
i) Attempts to slow down or reverse government growth in terms of overt public spending and staffing,
ii) The shift toward privatization and quasi-privatization and away from core government institutions, with
renewed emphasis on subsidiarity in service provision,
iii) The development of automation, particularly in information technology, in the production and distribution of
public services,
iv) The development of a more international agenda, increasingly focused on general issues of public
management, policy design, decision styles and intergovernmental cooperation on top of the older tradition of
individual country specialization in public administration (Hood, 1991:3).
At that framework, the approach that is typically called NPM came to the agenda by different names with various
scientists such as ‘New Public Management’ (Hood, 1991), ‘Reinventing Government’ (Osborne &Gaebler, 1993),
‘Market-Based Public Administration’ (Lan & Rosenbloom, 1992; Donahue &Nye, 2002), ‘Managerialism’ (Pollitt, 1990). In
this regard, Pollitt and Dan (2011:4) clarified that NPM origins are strongly connected with the UK Prime Minister
Thatcher, and US President Ronald Reagan, and with the New Zealand Labour government of 1984. At that point,
Hughes (2003) clarifications are worth to mention, the scholar clarified that ‘the NPM movement can be summarized as
containing two central arguments: 1) the market, not the government, is the best allocator of resources; and 2) individuals
are the best judges of their own welfare. In that scope, the doctrinal components of NPM have been determined by Hood
(1991:4-5) as follows:
‘Hands-on professional management’ in the
public sector
Active, visible. discretionary control of organizations from named persons at the top,
‘free to manage’
Definition of goals. targets, indicators of success, preferably expressed in
Explicit standards and measures of
quantitative terms, especially for professional services (cf. Day and Klein 1987;
performance
Carter 1989)
Resource allocations and rewards linked to measured performance, breakup of
Greater emphasis on output controls
decentralized bureaucracy wide personel management
Break up of formerly ‘monolithic’ units. unbundling of U-form management systems
Shift to disaggregation of units in the public
into corporatized units around products, operating on decentralized ‘one-line’
Sector
budgets and dealing with one another on an ‘armslength’ basis
Shift to greater competition in public sector
Move to term contracts and public tendering procedures
Stress on private sector styles of management Move away from military-style ‘public service ethic’, greater flexibility in hiring cind
practice
rewards; greater use of PR techniques
Stress on greater discipline and parsimony in Cutting direct costs. Raising labour discipline.
resource use
Resisting union demands. limiting ‘compliance costs’ to business
38
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 6 No 4
July 2015
Likewise, Osborne and Gaebler (1992) even called for a cultural shift away from the bureaucratic government towards an
entrepreneurial government as it is both competitive and customer- driven. In their study of ‘Reinventing Government:
How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector’; those scholars also described the main initiatives and
principles of NPM, as follows: Catalytic government: steering rather than rowing; Community-owned government:
empowering rather than serving; Competitive government: injecting competition in service delivery; Mission-driven
government: transforming rule-driven organizations; Results-oriented government: funding outcomes, not inputs;
Customer-driven government: meeting the needs of the customer, not the bureaucracy; Enterprising government: earning
rather than spending; Anticipatory government: prevention rather than cure; Decentralized government: from hierarchy to
participation and teamwork. Moreover, in addition to the study of Osborne and Gaebler, eight key characteristics that
shed light on the character and value emphasis of the techniques and practices of NPM described by Pollitt (2001, 2003:
27) as follows:
1. A shift in the focus of management systems and efforts from inputs (and processes towards outputs and
outcomes).
2. A shift towards more measurement and quantification, especially in the form of systems of performance
indicators and/or explicit standards.
3. A preference for more specialized, lean, flat and autonomous organizational forms rather than large, multipurpose, hierarchical ministries or departments.
4. A widespread substitution of contracts (or contract-like relationships) for what was previously formal,
hierarchical relationships.
5. A wide deployment of market mechanisms for the delivery of public services.
6. An emphasis on service quality and a customer orientation.
7. A broadening and blurring of the frontiers between the public sector and the market sector and the voluntary
sector.
8. A shift in value priorities away from universalism, equity, security, and resilience and towards efficiency, and
individualism.
In this regard, Hood (1991: 5) also clarified that the origins of NPM is a marriage of two streams of approaches.
One of them is the ‘new institutional economics’. That movement provided the generation of a set of administrative reform
doctrines founded on contestability, user choice, transparency, accountability, competition, user preferences, openness
and close concentration on incentive structures (Dunsire, 1995: 29; Hood, 1991: 5). The other partner is the ‘business
type managerialism’ in the public sector that was based on the ideas of professional management expertise. At all things
considered; it is seen that NPM is composed of the combination of strategies and techniques of market and that approach
has the target to combine the political context of public bureaucracies to institutional arrangements. According to that
approach, competition between the public, private, and non-profit institutions enables the efficiency, performance, costeffectiveness, and customer satisfaction in the provision of public goods and services (Killian, 2008: 50).
3. The Emergence of NPM in Turkey
Turkey does not have a good reputation concerning the reform applications in public administration. At that context,
Kapucu and PalabÕyÕk (2008: 194-195) clarified that there are many factors related to the negative results of the
restructuring initiatives until the end of 1990s. The scholars determined that the reforms were prepared by a closed and
Weberian, hierarchic administration understanding of the industry age. Moreover, other reasons behind the negative
outcomes were listed as lack of any serious theoretical foundation underpinning an approach to reform, lack of holistic
approaches, and the consideration of public administration system apart from social, economic, political, and cultural
systems surrounding it. After the transition of the modern bureaucratic administration approach, many reform initiatives
were launched but they remained at report level and found no chance for application. At that framework, the planned
period was critical at the administrative reform efforts that had been carried out by the Turkish experts in Turkey. Certain
tasks related to the restructuring of public administration were given to the State Planning Organization (SPO) founded in
1960 and the restructuring initiatives reached a legal basis (Coúkun, 2005: 17). One of the first extensive researches at
the planned period was ‘Central Government Organization Project’ (MEHTAP) in 1963 (Tortop et al., 2007: 466). The
Project started in 1962 for the determination of the distribution of responsibilities in the ministries, departments, and
institutions within the central government organization, and examination of that distribution whether it provides the
possibility of efficient realization of public services. The MEHTAP Report has been prepared to allow the central
government organization to provide the public services in an effective and efficient way (Leblebici, 2005: 7-8). By Decree
No. 7/2527 on 29/05/1971, an ‘Administrative Reform Advisory Board’ established to designate the general direction of
39
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 6 No 4
July 2015
the re-organization of the state and the strategy (Sürgit, 1972: 149). In that scope, Administrative Reform Advisory Board
was responsible for those listed tasks; determining the general direction and strategy of the restructuring of
administration, putting forth the organizational structure that carry out the restructuring process, identifying the areas of
restructuring and priorities, evaluating the administrative reforms up to that time and connected it to the application
program, ensuring the consistency between state economic enterprise restructuring affairs and the studies in the field of
general administration (ødari Reform DanÕúma Kurulu Raporu, 1972: 1). At that framework, the most comprehensive
reform initiative before the new management approach was ‘Public Administration Research Project’ (KAYA). The main
purposes of the Project can be listed as follows; reaching of the central and local organizations of central government and
local governments to the efficient, rapid, economic, effective and qualified service provision standards; ensuring
compliance of public administration to the developing contemporary conditions, identifying the deficiencies at the public
institutions targets, responsibility, authority, at their organizational formation, personnel system, communication and
public relation system (Aslaner, 2006).
The paradigm shift that began in the 1980s was also reflected in Turkey. By the 1980s onwards, the privatization
initiatives towards the downsizing of the public field are noteworthy at the reflection of NPM. With the Özal period, it was
observed that liberalization initiatives were launched. At that related period, first-wave reform process changes occurred
in the field of economic management. In addition to the privatization initiatives, state monopolies in various fields were
removed and the emphasis was given to the deregulation policies (EryÕlmaz, 2002: 153). By the 2000s onwards, the first
serious attempt at the public administration in the period began with the Law No. 5227 on ‘Basic Principles and
Restructuring of Public Administration’. That related Law was fully prepared in accordance with the NPM approach
(Güler, 2005). The Law attempted to apply the basic principles of NPM (Kapucu &PalabÕyÕk, 2008: 196). In that regard,
the purposes of this law can be listed as follows; the formation of a public administration based on participation,
transparency, accountability, human rights and freedoms; the determination of the authority and responsibilities of central
government and local governments for the provision of public services in a just, rapid, qualified, efficient, and effective
manner; the restructuring of the central government, and regulation of the basic principles and procedures concerning
public services (YÕlmaz, 2014: 16). In the presence of all these considerations, by the Law on Basic Principles and
Restructuring of Public Administration, YÕlmaz (2014: 23) emphasized that a serious step has been taken concerning
transition of the state’s and public administration’s power, resource, and responsibilities to the market, local governments,
to the civil society. In that scope, while the Law text was not adopted1 that formed the legal framework of the reform of
public administration, the Law of Public Finance Management, Metropolitan Municipality Law and Special Provincial Law
that complement the reform process entered into force by one by in Turkey (Kapucu &PalabÕyÕk, 2008: 195-196). Finally,
it is seen that the new management approach reflected to the municipality and SPA Laws in Turkey (Al, 2008: 27).
4. The Examination of NPM in Local Government Laws in Turkey
The main themes and principles of NPM can be listed as customer-orientation, competitiveness, competition in public
sector, competitive government, flexibility, pluralism, performance and result-orientation, decentralization, horizontal
organization, participation, private sector styles of management practice, service quality, efficiency and effectiveness,
subsidiarity in service provision. Within the scope of that study, one of the main objectives is the analysis of those listed
themes and principles at the general justifications of the local government laws in Turkey. The general justifications of
four local governments Laws’ are examined in detail such as Special Provincial Administration Law No. 5302, Municipality
Law No. 5393, and Metropolitan Municipality Law No. 5216 and Law No. 6360 on ‘The Establishment of Fourteen
Metropolitan Municipalities and Twenty-seven Districts and Amendments at Certain Law and Decree Laws’.
4.1
The General Justification of Special Provincial Administration Law No. 5302:
At the general justification of the Law No. 5302, it is stressed that the individuals’ request has shown a steady increase in
related with the participation to the local decision-making process with the augmentation and diversification of the local
citizens’ demands and rights. It is also pointed out that the wave concerning participation to government right demands
that lead to the erosion of the nation-states in the globalized world and strengthening of the decentralized formations felt
its existence in Turkey as well as in all countries. Besides, it is clarified that the Republic of Turkey confronted with those
That reference Law was passed by Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA) on July, 2004, however, on August 3, 2004 President
Ahmet Necdet Sezer vetoed the law and sent back to TGNA with the reason that the law was not compatible with the general principles
of law, the Constitution, and the common interest of the public.
1
40
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 6 No 4
July 2015
kinds of demands by the 1980s onwards that decentralization launched to be dominant in the administrative system.
Therefore, the decentralization and public participation to the administration as a collective subject have been
demonstrated at the general justification of the Law as an inevitable necessity. In this context, democracy is determined
as a form of administration, and decentralization is highlighted as the guarantee of democracy. As it is seen at the
general justification of SPA Law No. 5302; social factors that lead to the emergence of the NPM have been determined
specifically with the rising participation demands of the citizens to the local-decision-making process. Besides,
decentralization, which is identified as the guarantee of democracy, and public participation entailment have been
determined in an explicit way, that are appropriate with the initiatives and principles of NPM such as ‘decentralized
government: from hierarchy to participation and teamwork’.2
4.2
The General Justification of Municipality Law No. 5393:
At the general justification of the Law, it was elucidated that a rapid change and transformation have been living that
deeply affecting the social formation relations at all over the world. It is also emphasized that the transformation process
began at the last quarter of 20th century and continued in the 21th century; with leaving deep impacts on the idea,
formation, and functions of public administration and led to the disputes at the responsibilities and working methods. At
the general justification of the Law, it was put forward that those discussions that led to the redefinition of the role of the
government brought together the demands of the democratization of the public administration. At that context, it was
mentioned that the traditional (classical) representation method is inefficient and the principles of openness, participation,
responsibility and accountability in service provision should be realized to reach a more democratic public administration
and those principles are declared as the essential elements of the public administration. As it is seen from the general
justification of the Law, NPM principles and components such as openness, participation, and accountability in service
provision have been counted as the essential elements of public administration at reaching to a democratic public
administration. Moreover, it is noticeable that NPM is highlighted as a new paradigm that was based on effectiveness and
efficiency in administration. Essential necessities in adapting change are counted as being ready to the uncertainties of
the future, rapid decision-making, and finding quickly appropriate solutions to the problems. Besides, a transformation
and change at the local governments have been declared as a necessity at the restructuring of public administration. In
that framework, it is also pointed out that the organizational structure, duties and powers, processes, and targets of the
local governments will also subject to change. By the same token, the removal of the excessive bureaucratic formation,
the formation of more flexible and smaller units, and questioning of the working method and processes have been
indicated as the necessities at the restructuring of public administration. At the general justification, it is elucidated that
the public administration system should be restructured and transformed around the effectiveness, efficiency, flexibility,
rapid decision-making principles of NPM. From the above clarification, it is also obvious that Hood’s doctrinal components
of NPM are also demonstrated and used such as the disaggregation of units in the public sectors with the formation of
smaller units; and, the other doctrinal component comes to the front side such as private sector style of management by
the questioning of the working method and processes of public administration. Furthermore, at the general justification of
the Law, it was also illuminated that the prominence of the strategic management in addition to flexible and horizontal
organization and emphasis on the entailment of entrepreneurial and competitive characteristics of the government are
also compatible conditions with decentralization. The key features of NPM such as entrepreneurial government (earning
rather than spending), competitive government (injecting competition), strategic management (explicit standards and
measures of performance), flexible and horizontal organization model (a preference for more specialized, lean, flat and
autonomous organizational forms rather than large, multi-purpose, hierarchical ministries and departments),
decentralization are used specifically at the general justification of the Law No. 5393. Besides, it was also illuminated that
assigning more tasks and responsibilities to the local governments at the provision of the public services requires the
change of the traditional structure of the allocation of the powers and resources between the central government and
local governments. Therefore, it was underlined that the supporting of the local government with more authority,
responsibility, and financial resources require corresponding changes in the administrative formation and approach of
those administrations. By the assignment of more tasks and responsibilities to the local governments at the public service
provision and supporting of the local government with more authority, responsibility and financial resources are the key
determinants and indicators towards the decentralization and service quality component of NPM. In the light of those
clarifications, it is observed that local governments are declared as the administrative formations that requiring an
administrative change compatible with the key themes and principles of NPM. At the general justification of the Law, it
2
For details, see, The general justification of Law No. 5302, <http://www2.tbmm.gov.tr/d24/2/2-0627.pdf>, (10.09.2014).
41
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 6 No 4
July 2015
was pointed out that an approach that is based on demands of citizens should be ensured in the administrative system to
increase the satisfaction of the facilitators and to provide the quality, legality, effectiveness, and efficiency. It is also
emphasized that there is the need of mechanisms involving accountability, openness, transparency, predictability at a
result-oriented administration. The new paradigm of NPM has been supported by stressing on the entailment of a resultoriented, accountable, effective, efficient, open and transparent administrative system.
Furthermore, local governments are denoted as the guarantee of the local public interests at the representative
democracy. On the other hand, it was also underlined that local governments have influential roles as an important
element of the democratic system, at the provision of the pluralism and participation, at the reconciliation of local and
national interests, at reflection of the public preferences, demands, and expectations to the local-administration.
Furthermore, it was stressed that local governments have more possibilities and capabilities in comparison to the central
government in related with the provision of the public participation; thus, local governments have been determined as an
administrative system that strengthen the administrative capacity of the entire system. At the general justification of the
Law No. 5393; it was stressed that as a result of these considerations, the basic values of local governments such as
democracy, autonomy, participation, and effectiveness principles tried to be reflected to the ground of the Law. The
autonomy which is the prerequisite of the principle of decentralization has been highlighted at the justification of the Law
such as; the duties and services that are assigned to the local government by laws should be realized by the decisions of
their bodies and under their responsibility. Besides, the components of NPM such as effectiveness, efficiency, and
participation have been identified in a clear way, and those themes are determined as the elements of the new
administration system. It was also stressed that some of the provisions that are brought by the reference Law at the
restructuring of the municipalities are relevant with the more democratic, participatory, and transparent administrations; it
was underlined that there is a close relationship with the local citizens’ demands for participation to local-decision making
process and efficient provision of public services. As it was seen from the above clarifications, the justification of the Law
also tries to set up a bridge between NPM and municipal administration with the NPM’s key themes of democracy,
participation, and transparency.
One of the new arrangements in related with participation is determined as the participation to the municipal
councils and specialized commissions; and submission of opinions to those local mechanisms. By those new
arrangements; it was stressed that municipal council decisions will be announced to the public with the most appropriate
way. The city councils are identified as a platform where everyone reaches the opportunity to explain their opinions with
the support of the municipality. It was also added that the foresight of the evaluation of the council decisions at the first
meeting of the municipal council will form another dimension to participate to the municipal administration. It is seen that
significant steps have been put forward at the general justification of the Law in terms of the public participation which is
one of the main components of NPM.
Furthermore, another objective envisaged by the justification of the Law is determined as the establishment of an
effective and efficient administration at the municipalities. It is pointed out that the municipalities will prepare their fiveyear strategic plan that involves the basic targets and the activities that are carried out to reach the determined targets. At
that point, it is also added that the annual working program, budgets, and performance criteria have been formed
according to this plan. It is asserted that the municipalities will form future-oriented policies that bring long-term solutions
and have a result-oriented approach with those five-year strategic plans. As it was seen from the clarifications, strategic
management, efficiency, effectiveness, and result-oriented approach themes of the NPM are determined as the
objectives of that justification of the Law. It was also determined that the municipal council reach the authority to decide
on granting of franchise on behalf of municipality, realization of investments by the municipality on built-operate or builtoperate-transfer basis; privatization of the companies, enterprises, and participations of the municipality. By those
alternative service provision methods, it was pointed out that the working methods will be varied, and it will contribute to
the provision of the effectiveness. As it was declared at the determination of NPM, that new paradigm tried to set up close
relation with private sector and public administration with the objective of benefiting from the private sector management
practices which can be also explained as a wide deployment of the market mechanism at the delivery of the services. At
the above clarification, those private sector practices and working methods are supported in the effective provision of
public services at the municipal administration. The other provisions that are brought by the justification of the Law are
determined as, the foresight of an employment policy compatible with the performance evaluation and strategic
management, and giving possibility to the flexible organization for the establishment of an effective management at the
municipal administrations. As it was declared before, the justification of the Law submitted the key components of NPM at
42
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 6 No 4
July 2015
its provisions such as performance evaluation, strategic management, and flexible administration3.
4.3
The General Justification of Metropolitan Municipality Law No. 5216:
At the beginning of the general justifications of the Metropolitan Municipality Law No. 5216, it was expressed that at a
system which is started to be implemented for the first time in 1984 with the Law No. 3030 which has no previous
experience, has naturally some shortcomings in its application process. The accepted problems at that framework
clarified as follows; there is no objective criteria at the sharing of responsibility and functions, the cooperation
mechanisms are insufficient among the administrative mechanisms, the metropolitan municipal administration has a
definite hegemony on district, and first-tier municipalities, planning and coordination at the metropolitan scale cannot be
done at the metropolitan level and the size of the municipalities are very different. Those problems listed above were
asserted as the source of the inefficient and ineffective usage of resources.
At the general justification, it was declared that the concentration of population in relatively several cities of the
country leads to the emergence of huge centers. It was also pointed out that these centers have faced with not only
inadequate services but also a serious of problems that are stemmed from their size. Additionally, as to the government,
most of the local government units that set up in the metropolitan urban areas have also lack of capacity to solve the
problems that they encounter handicaps owing to their organizational structure, insufficiency of their service provision
capabilities, and financial resources. At that point, according to the government, there are mismatches at the local service
provision, and those factors are assumed to eliminate the effectiveness and efficiency at local administration process. It is
mentioned that a large number of local government units have the responsibility at the provision of the local services that
inconsistencies emerged in the planning and coordination, and it is not benefited from the economies of scale; resources
are wasted as a result of this plight.
At the general justification of the Law No 5216, it was pointed out that to cope with the problems of the
metropolitan cities entail the application of different administrative models. The formation of two-tier administrative system
application in the large cities is highlighted as a method that gained prevalence in the world. Also, it is determined that in
our country a variety of researches and studies have been made, and draft laws have been prepared concerning the
establishment of different administrative formations in the metropolitan areas. It was also expressed that special
administrative formations entailment has been determined at the Five-Year Development Plans and the restructuring
public administration reports especially for Istanbul and other big cities. At that point, at the general justification of the
Law, it was pointed out that to solve those listed problems and to make the effective functioning of the metropolitan
municipal administration emerged as an urgent need. On the other hand, the developments in the public administration
entail the restructuring of the metropolitan municipalities and reaching them to an effective, transparent, accountable and
participatory formation. As it is seen from the clarifications, the themes and principles of NPM are observed at the restructuring of metropolitan administrations to reach and adapt the developments of public administration.
By the general justification, those listed issues are arranged such as; the establishment of metropolitan, district,
and first tier municipalities, their organs, responsibilities, powers, income, organizations and the relation between the
municipalities. Besides, at the division of the tasks, it is determined that the local common tasks and services that their
impacts do not surpass the municipal borders and also which can be done within the district and first tier municipal
borders should be fulfilled by the district and first-tier municipalities. At that framework, the tasks and responsibilities that
are entailed for planning and coordination at the metropolitan-wide or which are required to be done in financial terms by
metropolitan municipality will be fulfilled by the metropolitan municipality. In that context, it was pointed out that the
services which can be done by the district and first-tier municipalities but can lead to challenges in the application process
will be fulfilled by the metropolitan municipality. Such a division of task assumed to provide objectivity in the application
process and also it is supposed to give the possibility of realization of the subsidiarity principle at services among the
administration levels. At that point, it is explicit that, the task distribution is planning to be made concerning the
decentralization and the principle of subsidiarity which are the main themes of the new paradigm of NPM. It was assumed
that by the legalization of that general justification; the problems that the metropolitan municipalities encounter will be
solved rapidly and the services will be provided in an effective and efficient way. Consequently, it is seen that the themes
of NPM such as effectiveness and efficiency at the service provision are tried to be integrated with the Law No. 5216 4.
For Details, see, The general justification of Law No. 5393, < http://www.sayilikanun.com/5393-sayili-belediye-kanununun-gerekcesi/>
(05.12.2014).
4 For Details, see, The general justification of Law No. 5216,< http://www.sayilikanun.com/5216-sayili-buyuksehir-belediyelerikanununun-gerekcesi> (05.12.2014).
3
43
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
4.4
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 6 No 4
July 2015
The General Justification of the Law No. 6360 on the Establishment of Fourteen Metropolitan Municipalities and
Twenty-seven Districts and Amendments at Certain Law and Decree Laws:
According to the general justification of the Law No. 6360, similar with the Law No. 5216, it was expressed that the
administration approach has changed with globalization, and new values have been emerged with this transition. It was
also underlined that the administration approach that is effective, efficient, citizen-focused, accountable, transparent,
participatory, and local comes to the front side as the basic principle for the public administration reforms in many
developed countries. As it is seen from the above clarification new themes of NPM such as effectiveness, efficiency,
citizen-orientation, accountability, transparency, participation, and decentralization started to be used as the entailments
of the public administration reforms. Those principles and values envisaged not only the development of the service
quality with the target of increasing the citizens’ satisfaction but also the provision of more participation of local citizens to
the public administration. At the general justification of the Law, it was also stressed that the public administration has to
meet the effectiveness, efficiency, and local citizens’ service expectations at that new approach. It is observed that it is
tried to set up a bridge between the NPM and its new values with the public administration.
Moreover, local governments are determined with the aspect of the local citizens’ participation to the democratic
life. Therefore, it was highlighted that the local governments should constantly be developed and reached the effective
service provision capacity. At the general justification of the Law, it was emphasized that while the local governments
within the metropolitan cities borders can make small-scale plans; those plans are required to deal with in a broad
framework that determine the macro policies and with an integrated approach that including the metropolitan region. One
of the other reasons at the requirement of the metropolitan municipality is expressed as not the provision of the planning
and coordination with the large number of local governments’ authorization at a specific geographic area, and the poorly
utilization from the economy of scale that leading to the waste of resources. In that context, it is determined that the small
scale local governments having inadequate financial resources, and incapacities at service provision cannot solve the
problems stemmed from industrialization, transportation, and environment. It was declared that this situation prevents the
effective and appropriate usage of resources and leads to serious administrative problems not only at small settlements,
but also at big cities having a dense population. In that scope, lacking of the strong local government that will produce
effective local services asserted to lead to the emergence of the problems such as not meeting the hopes of the local
citizens concerning the provision of qualified public services, and lacking of coordination at the delivery of the public
services.
In this context, at the general justification of the Law, it was determined that the existence of strong local
administrative formations that can produce services in optimal scale is entailed in terms of administration, planning, and
coordination. At that point, it is pointed out that the effectiveness, coordination, and quality will rise by the economies of
scale that emerges as a result of execution of the provided services at the metropolitan area; qualified service provision
can be ensured with fewer resources. The provision of services, by a big center having an ideal scale that are currently
provided by more than one center lead to the reduction of the unit costs and per capita public expenditure. It is perceived
that when the metropolitan municipality borders are expanded to the provincial borders, it is hoped to reduce the public
expenditure at the service provision which is one of the key components of NPM. From this point of evaluation, the
metropolitan municipality model that will provide services at the provincial border is assumed to reveal those following
positive developments as follows:
• Local government units that produce broad-scale services can be equipped with advanced technologies.
• At those units, qualified technical staff can be employed, and also the productivity will be increased as to the
specialization of the labor power.
• The local government system that is formed from broad-scale local units can provide efficient use of resources
that will be transferred from the center.
• A more equitable formation will come out from the aspect of the facilities to be owned and the usage of the
resources among the local government units that are integrated within the provincial borders.
Finally, it can be clearly stated that with the Law No. 6360, the effectiveness and efficiency themes of NPM have
been integrated to the local public service provision process of metropolitan municipalities. Metropolitan municipality is
asserted as the administrative unit having the required potential at the efficient usage of resources, at the preparation of
integrated development plan, at the augmentation of the productivity as to the specialization of the labor power5.
5
For details, see, The general justification of Law No. 6360, <http://www2.tbmm.gov.tr/d24/2/2-1316.pdf>, (09.11.2014).
44
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
Vol 6 No 4
July 2015
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
5. Conclusion
By the 1980s onwards, the management of public sector has witnessed a significant transformation in many developed
countries, with the emergence of the new paradigm of NPM. At that framework, NPM came out as a challenge to the
classical public administration. In that regard, most of the advocates of the NPM emphasize the negative sides of the
public organizations and institutions with indicating their Weberian peculiarities of hierarchy, division of labor, and too
much dependence on formal norms (Killian, 2008: 50). Therefore, new themes and principles of the public sector can be
listed as follows; customer-orientation, flexibility, pluralism, performance and result-orientation, decentralization,
horizontal organization, competition in public sector, competitive government, participation, private sector styles of
management practice, service quality, efficiency and effectiveness, subsidiarity in service provision. In that context, by the
2000s onwards, especially with the Law No. 5227 on ‘Basic Principles and Restructuring of Public Administration’, serious
steps have been taken concerning the transition to the principles of NPM in Turkey. The Law attempted to apply the basic
principles of NPM (Kapucu &PalabÕyÕk, 2008: 196). While that Law text was not adopted, the local government laws that
complement the reform process entered into force by one by in Turkey. In that context, the general justifications of four
local governments Laws’ are examined in detail such as Special Provincial Administration Law No. 5302, Municipality
Law No. 5393, and Metropolitan Municipality Law No. 5216 and Law No. 6360 on ‘The Establishment of Fourteen
Metropolitan Municipalities and Twenty-seven Districts and Amendments at Certain Law and Decree Laws’ in terms of
the principles and themes of the NPM. In almost at all of the general justification of the examined laws, it is seen that the
principles of participation, effectiveness, efficiency, accountability, transparency, decentralization, subsidiarity, private
sector based method applications at public sector, horizontal organization, performance management and result
orientation, strategic planning, competitiveness, flexibility, pluralism, service quality, cost-efficiency, openness, economy
of scale principles of NPM came to the front side. A transformation necessity in the public administration system has been
highlighted at all local laws to reach the success at the administrative system with the above listed NPM principles.
Moreover, the reduction of cost/ cost efficiency principle tried to be reached by the application of private sector methods
to public sector and with facilitating from the economy of scale by enlarging the scale. In that context, the effectiveness
and efficiency at service provision principles tried to be ensured by horizontal and flexible organization model,
performance management, accountability, transparency, citizen-orientation, and public participation. Moreover,
decentralization principle which is declared as the guarantee of democracy tried to be reached by assigning more tasks
and responsibilities to the local governments and supporting of the local governments with more financial resources.
Lastly, participation principle tried to be reached by the new participatory platforms such as city councils. Consequently, it
is obviously seen that public administration system tried to be restructured and transformed around the effectiveness,
efficiency, openness, participation, accountability, transparency, subsidiarity, flexibility, performance management, costefficiency, private sector based method applications and rapid decision-making principles of NPM and those principles
have been counted as the essential elements of public administration at reaching to a democratic public administration
system in Turkey.
Table 1: The Key Principles of NPM at the General Justifications of the Local Government Laws in Turkey:
Participation
Decentralization
Customer-orientation
Competitiveness, competition in public sector
Flexibility and rapid decision-making
Pluralism
Performance and result-orientation
Horizontal organization
Private sector styles of management practice
Service quality
Efficiency and effectiveness
Cost efficiency/ reduction of cost
Subsidiarity
Democratization of the public administration
Openness
Accountability
The Law No. 5302 The Law No. 5393 The Law No. 5216 The Law No. 6360
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
45
¥
¥
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
Vol 6 No 4
July 2015
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Transparency
Strategic management
Entrepreneurial government
Competitive government
Economy of scale
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
References
Al, H. (2008). Yeni kamu yönetimi: ülke deneyimleri, østanbul: De÷iúim YayÕnlarÕ.
Arap, ø. & YÕlmaz, L. (2006). Yeni kamu yönetimi anlayÕúÕnÕn yeni kurumu: kamu görevlileri etik kurulu, Amme ødaresi Dergisi, Cilt:39,
SayÕ:2, pp.51-69.
Aslaner, A. (2006). Kamu idaresinde yeniden yapÕlanma çalÕúmalarÕ, pp.47-67, http://www.icisleri.gov.tr_icisleri Turk Idare Dergisi>.
(04.15.2015).
Bilgiç, V. (2003). Yeni kamu yönetimi anlayÕúÕ, (Eds). AsÕm BalcÕ, Ahmet Nohutçu, NamÕk Kemal Öztürk, Bayram Coúkun, Kamu
Yönetiminde Ça÷daú YaklaúÕmlar, Ankara: Seçkin YayÕncÕlÕk.
Cavanagh, S. (1997). Content analysis: concepts, methods and applications. Nurse Researcher, 4(3), pp. 5-16.
Coúkun, B. (2005). Türkiye’de kamu yönetiminde yeniden yapÕlanma tarihsel geçmiú ve genel bir de÷erlendirme, Türk ødare Dergisi,
SayÕ: 448, pp.14-47.
Donahue, J.D. &Nye, J.S. (2002). Market-Based governance: supply side, demand side, upside and downside, Washington: Brookings
Institution Press.
Dunleavy, P. &Hood, C.C. (1994). From old public administration to new public management, Public Money and Management, 14(2),
pp.9-16.
Dunsire, A. (1995). Administrative theory in the 1980s: a viewpoint. Public Administration, Vol. 73, pp.17-40.
Eikenberry, A. &Pautz, M. C. (2008). Administrative reform in the united states: toward government-nonprofit partnerships in
governance, (Eds). Jerri Killian and Niklas Eklund, Handbook of 219 Administrative Reform: An ønternational Perspective, CRC
Press, New York, pp. 197-213.
EryÕlmaz, B. (2002). Bürokrasi ve siyaset: bürokratik devletten etkin yönetime, østanbul: Alfa YayÕnlarÕ.
Güler, B.A. (2005). Devlette reform yazÕlarÕ: dünyada ve türkiye’de ekonomik liberalizasyondan siyasi-idari liberalizasyona, Ankara:
Paragraf YayÕnlarÕ.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons, Public Administration, Vol. 69, spring issue, pp.3-19.
Hughes, O. (2003). Public management and administration: an introduction. New York: Palgrave.
ødari Reform DanÕúma Kurulu Raporu (1972). ødarenin yeniden düzenlenmesi: ilkeler ve öneriler (Ankara: Sevinç MatbaasÕ).
Kapucu, N. & PalabÕyÕk, H.(2008). Turkish public administration: from tradition to modern age, Ankara: International Strategic Research
Organization.
Killian, J. (2008). The missing link in administrative reform: considering culture, handbook of administrative reform: an Õnternational
perspective, (Eds.) Jerri Killian and Niklas Eklund, Auerbach Publications, Boca Raton.
Kurt, M., &U÷urlu, Ö.Y. (2007). Yeni kamu yönetimi ve yeni kamu yönetimi yaklaúÕmÕnÕn geliúiminde avrupa birli÷i’nin rolü: ilerleme
raporlarÕ içerik analizi, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi øøBF Dergisi, Cilt: 9 SayÕ: 2, pp.81-109.
Lan, Z. & Rosenbloom, D.H. (1992). Public administration in transition, Public Administration Review, Vol. 52, No. 6, pp. 535-537.
Leblebici, D.N. (2005). Küresel de÷iúim baskÕsÕna karúÕ Türk bürokrasisindeki yapÕsal uyum çabalarÕnÕn yapÕsal atalet kavramÕ açÕsÕndan
de÷erlendirilmesi, Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi øktisadi ve ødari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, C:6, pp.1-14.
Osborne, D. &Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Osborne, D. &Gaebler, T. (1993). Reinventing government: how the entrepreneurial spirit Õs transforming the public sector, New York: A
Plume Book.
Ömürgönülúen, U. (1997). The new public management, AÜSBF Dergisi, C.52, Ocak-AralÕk, No:1-4, pp.517-566.
Önez Çetin, Z. (2012). A critical evaluation of local poverty alleviation policies: the case of three provinces in Turkey, METU,
Unpublished Master Thesis.
Öniú, Ziya &ùenses, F. (2003). Re-thinking the emerging of post-washington consensus: a critical appraisal, ERC Working Paper in
Economics 03/09 November 2003, pp. 1-36.
Özer. M.A. (2005).Yeni kamu yönetimi: teoriden uygulamaya, Ankara: Platin YayÕnlarÕ.
Özer, M.A. (2012). Yeni kamu yönetimi, Ankara: BarÕú Kitabevi.
Parlak, B., &SobacÕ, Z., (2005). Kuram ve uygulamalarda kamu yönetimi ulusal ve global perspektifler, Istanbul: Aktüel YayÕnlarÕ.
Perry, J. &Kraemer, K. (1983). Public management: public and private perspectives, California: Mayfield Publishing Co..
Prasad, D. (2008).Content Analysis A method in Social Science Research1 B p.3 , http://www.css.ac.in/download/Content%20Analysis
.%20A%20method%20of%20Social%20Science%20Research.pdf (02.01.2015).
Pollitt, C. (1990). Managerialism and the public services: the anglo-american experience, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Pollitt, C. (2001). Clarifying convergence: striking similarities and durable differences in public management reform, Public Management,
2(2), pp.181-199.
Pollitt, C. (2003). The essential public manager. Buckingham: Open University Press/McGraw Hill.
46
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 6 No 4
July 2015
Pollitt, C. &Dan, S. (2011). The impacts of the new public management in Europe: a meta analysis, cocops work package 1-deliverable
1.1
Promberger, K. & Rauskala, M. I. (2003). New public management-an introduction from the UK perspective working paper, 6/2003.
Sarker, A. E. &R. D. Pathak. (2000). New public management: an analytical review, Productivity, Volume 41, Number 1., pp.56-65.
Sezen, S. (2006). Teori ve uygulamada yeni kamu yönetimi, Ankara: Seçkin YayÕncÕlÕk.
Sürgit, K. (1972). Türkiye’de idari reform, TODAIE YayÕnÕ, Ankara.
Tortop, N., øspir, E.G., Aykaç, B., Yayman, H., Özer, M.A. (2007). Yönetim bilimi, 7. BaskÕ, Ankara: Nobel YayÕnlarÕ.
Üstüner, Y. (2012). Türkiye’de kamu yönetimi (Eds.) Burhan Aykaç, ùenol Durgun, Hüseyin Yayman, Kamu yönetimi kuramÕ ve kamu
iúletmecili÷i okulu, pp.387-404.
YÕlmaz, A. (2014). AB’ye uyum sürecinde türk kamu yönetiminin dönüúümü üzerine notlar, DumlupÕnar Üniversitesi Dergisi, 17.SayÕ,
pp.1-26.
Zeren, H.E. (2011). Yeni Kamu yönetimi düúüncesinin Türkiye’de kent yönetimine etkisi, (Eds). Yüksel Koçak, A. Cem Çiçek, Kamu
yönetimi: yönetim-siyaset, sorunlar ve yeniden yapÕlanma, SFS Grup YayÕnevi, Ankara, pp. 23-48.
47